Ryan D Kraus1, Ann S Hamilton2, Mari Carlos3, Leslie K Ballas4. 1. Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Southern California Keck School of Medicine, 1441 Eastlake Ave, Norris G350, Los Angeles, CA, 90033, USA. 2. Department of Preventative Medicine, University of Southern California Keck School of Medicine, Los Angeles, CA, USA. 3. University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA, USA. 4. Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Southern California Keck School of Medicine, 1441 Eastlake Ave, Norris G350, Los Angeles, CA, 90033, USA. lballas@med.usc.edu.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Treatment information from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Result Program (SEER) cancer registries is increasingly being used for population-based cancer research; however, it may be incomplete for outpatient procedures and is not quality controlled. We sought to validate SEER information on initial treatment of prostate cancer by comparison to electronic medical record (EMR) review. METHODS: Patients diagnosed with prostate cancer between 1 January 2010 and 31 December 2014 in Los Angeles County who received treatment at our institution within 6 months of diagnosis were identified from the SEER registry. We reviewed the hospital EMR for these patients and identified initial treatment received within 6 months of diagnosis. We compared data reported to SEER data to our re-abstracted hospital EMR data (defined as the gold standard) to identify the completeness of SEER treatment data (sensitivity) and the accuracy of the SEER information (positive predictive value). RESULTS: Based on 266 eligible patients, SEER's sensitivity in capturing initial treatment was 95.9% (118/123) for prostatectomy, 95.8% (69/72) for no treatment, 87.5% (21/24) for radiation therapy, 68.3% (28/41) for active surveillance or watchful waiting, and 50.0% (2/4) for cryosurgery. The SEER positive predictive value was 100% for radiation therapy and cryosurgery, 97.5% (118/121) for radical prostatectomy, 82.3% (28/34) for active surveillance or watchful waiting, and 78.4% (69/88) for no treatment. CONCLUSION: The SEER data were highly sensitive and has a high positive predictive value for surgery and radiation therapy but underreported use of active surveillance. These results may assist researchers in understanding the strengths and weaknesses of using SEER prostate cancer treatment data.
PURPOSE: Treatment information from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Result Program (SEER) cancer registries is increasingly being used for population-based cancer research; however, it may be incomplete for outpatient procedures and is not quality controlled. We sought to validate SEER information on initial treatment of prostate cancer by comparison to electronic medical record (EMR) review. METHODS:Patients diagnosed with prostate cancer between 1 January 2010 and 31 December 2014 in Los Angeles County who received treatment at our institution within 6 months of diagnosis were identified from the SEER registry. We reviewed the hospital EMR for these patients and identified initial treatment received within 6 months of diagnosis. We compared data reported to SEER data to our re-abstracted hospital EMR data (defined as the gold standard) to identify the completeness of SEER treatment data (sensitivity) and the accuracy of the SEER information (positive predictive value). RESULTS: Based on 266 eligible patients, SEER's sensitivity in capturing initial treatment was 95.9% (118/123) for prostatectomy, 95.8% (69/72) for no treatment, 87.5% (21/24) for radiation therapy, 68.3% (28/41) for active surveillance or watchful waiting, and 50.0% (2/4) for cryosurgery. The SEER positive predictive value was 100% for radiation therapy and cryosurgery, 97.5% (118/121) for radical prostatectomy, 82.3% (28/34) for active surveillance or watchful waiting, and 78.4% (69/88) for no treatment. CONCLUSION: The SEER data were highly sensitive and has a high positive predictive value for surgery and radiation therapy but underreported use of active surveillance. These results may assist researchers in understanding the strengths and weaknesses of using SEER prostate cancer treatment data.
Authors: Chad Tang; Karen E Hoffman; Pamela K Allen; Molly Gabel; David Schreiber; Seungtaek Choi; Brian F Chapin; Quynh-Nhu Nguyen; John W Davis; Paul Corn; Christopher Logothetis; John Ward; Steven J Frank; Neema Navai; Sean E McGuire; Mitchell Anscher; Louis Pisters; Curtis A Pettaway; Rachit Kumar; Patrick Linson; Prabhakar Tripuraneni; Jeffrey J Tomaszewski; Ashish B Patel; Mark Augspurger; Deborah A Kuban Journal: Cancer Date: 2019-11-19 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: David Boyce-Fappiano; Kevin A Nguyen; Olsi Gjyshi; Gohar Manzar; Chike O Abana; Ann H Klopp; Mitchell Kamrava; Peter F Orio; Nikhil G Thaker; Firas Mourtada; Puja Venkat; Albert J Chang Journal: JCO Oncol Pract Date: 2021-09-22
Authors: Alexander F Bagley; Mitchell S Anscher; Seungtaek Choi; Steven J Frank; Karen E Hoffman; Deborah A Kuban; Sean E McGuire; Quynh-Nhu Nguyen; Brian Chapin; Ana Aparicio; Todd A Pezzi; Grace L Smith; Benjamin D Smith; Kenneth Hess; Chad Tang Journal: JAMA Netw Open Date: 2020-03-02